Is the IPCC Biased?

This post has been updated from a response originally made to a separate comment made elsewhere on this forum.

For those new to this blog the IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change is the world's leader in promoting the theory that mankind is dangerously warming the globe aka AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming. It wouldn't be too much to say it even has a monopoly on it.

It is ultimately from them that international governments are being badgered to adopt emission control targets via means of the UNFCCC - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change treaty.

It's hard to say the IPCC is not biased. There is a suite of prima facie evidence that it is, and I will cover this point in some future post for readers to judge for themselves. However I am sure there must be people with good moral ethics in there. But I also think it's highly likely there are people that should perhaps be scrutinized a bit more closely. I'll just leave it at that for now.

The IPCC Mandate

Aside from the people who actually work inside the IPCC, I do believe that as an organisation it has no other choice than to be biased on the issue of AGW because of the mandate that was given to them at the time of their inception and that is:

to focus only on man-made contributions to dangerous global warming - AGW.

This quote comes from the IPCC's own website here:https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml quote:...to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. /unquote.

and again:https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html quote:...The WMO and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the IPCC in 1988 with the assigned role of assessing the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for understanding the risk of human-induced climate change. /unquote.

IPCC Approach to Climate Change

This is where the whole approach of the IPCC has been flawed:1.They focused only on mankind contributions instead of "in the round", and also only since the beginnings of the industrial age - an insignificant amount of climate time. It seems illogical that any kind of solution to a problem can be solved by looking at just a part of it.

2.They were entirely wrong in accepting an unproven theory in the first place and then set about validating it to the world, instead of the other way around. This back-to-front approach came about because a group of scientists agreed beforehand that AGW was the problem. It's understood this took place at a UN sponsored conference in Austria in 1985. They believed that even a small change such as additional CO2 being added to the natural greenhouse gas processes could trigger runaway greenhouse global warming.

Consensus or Arrogance?

It's a valid theory and certainly worthy of further investigation, but unfortunately they didn't set about to prove it in a proper accepted scientific method, which includes getting their theory validated by their world peers. If they had, it would never have got off the ground because it still hasn't been proved almost 30 years later.

They believed the evidence was so convincing even though not proven, that it could be accepted by consensus as an established fact. That was the single biggest mistake in this whole saga of climate change debates in assuming that consensus and science can co-exist. It was to send the world into an expensive and fruitless tail-spin for decades and which still continues.

In any event, in the eyes of those original scientists their own research was sufficient to accept the premise of AGW. It was decided right there to set up an organisation (now the IPCC) to validate and promote the theory to the world. They wanted to get everyone on board to rein in mankind's greenhouse gas emissions and in particular CO2 as being the major one. And they did an exceedingly good job of it so that today the IPCC has the first and final say to all things related to climate science - as opposed to an opinion as seen by many other non-IPCC aligned scientific peers.

How AGW Was Sold

The marketing effort by the IPCC was exemplary. Their big ticket items in selling the idea of AGW to the masses were "scientific consensus" and versions of the infamous "hockey stick". Both of these have since been proven wrong.

To get the idea to governments and other scientists, the IPCC releases progressive Assessment Reports (ARs), that progressively labelled mankind more and more as being responsible. They didn't appear to make any real attempt at consideration of any other cause. Usually any counter-argument in the ARs if any, apparently gets drowned out in the Summaries of their reports. And some believe there is an over-emphasis on the negative items.

The heart of the real problem with the IPCC is that they are political by nature – not scientific. It was deliberately formed as such. Among other duties they were tasked to take submissions from scientists across their various fields, then rewrite them so that they could be more easily read by the masses. This is where other less-noble aspects of human behaviour can potentially come into play and because of that, should be studied carefully. It doesn't appear that's what has been happening.

For example the text of the 2nd AR was allegedly altered to give more support to AGW, the perpetrators probably being motivated by "noble cause". Questions began to be raised about the effectiveness of the "peer review" processes used by the IPCC. With all this in mind one wonders why so many international governments and scientific organizations have also come on board in the AGW blame game?

It's probably not so hard to understand why Governments have come on board. There continues to be considerable interest in the well being of the planet since about the 1960s. The outpourings of the IPCC received tremendous publicity as would be expected from a headline hungry media.

And it doesn't appear to be particularly hard to sway a politicians viewpoint if there is sufficient noise coming from their electorates in support of an issue. It's disgusting when the strength of politicians is measured by how much he/she sways in the breeze. Yes ... it is a cynical view but I've watched successive governments at least in Australia, change their approach to the issue depending on whether they're either in power or in opposition.

As regarding actual scientific organisations that have come on board with the IPCC, if I were the head of a scientific organisation of a country that becomes a member of a certain institution, I would be thinking deeply about the ramifications of bucking my own government with counter or controversial viewpoints. This would be especially so if the available science coming out from that institution seemed logical and conclusive enough. It's just human psychology at work.

Hey, if you want to un-skeptically swallow the unsubstantiated so-called "skeptic" opinions of one man who was paid by fossil fuel funded political think tanks, and ignore all the overwhelming evidence that contradict his claims, go right ahead.

Bob Carter hasn't published anything in science Journals that support his opinions on climate change other than one flawed paper in which he was a co-author where they claimed that global warming could be accounted for by ENSO.

"Assessment evaluates accumulated knowledge and its limits. It informs and ideally empowers decisions and actions on complex, contested issues with persistent uncertainties. Applying rigorous expert judgment is an important dimension of assessment. Here we evaluate advances and challenges in approaches to expert judgment in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5).

We find that revised guidance for author teams improved the development of balanced judgments on scientific evidence across disciplines. In particular, expert judgments underpinning conclusions are more extensively, transparently, and consistently communicated: degree-of-certainty terms are more abundant in AR5 policymaker summaries; wider ranges of possible outcomes are presented with greater inclusion of lower-certainty, decision-relevant findings; and expert judgments supporting conclusions are more comparable across working groups.

But challenges in developing and communicating assessment conclusions persist, especially for findings with substantial uncertainties and for subjective aspects of judgments. Based on our evaluations and AR5 lessons learned, we propose a simpler, more rigorous framework for developing and communicating expert judgments in environmental assessment. We also describe practices for reducing expert-judgment biases, for advancing integration of evidence and expert judgment, and for addressing subjective dimensions of expert opinion directly and proactively."
Edited on 17-03-2017 10:23

Hey, if you want to un-skeptically swallow the unsubstantiated so-called "skeptic" opinions of one man who was paid by fossil fuel funded political think tanks, and ignore all the overwhelming evidence that contradict his claims, go right ahead.

Why is it that pro-AGW advocates seem to prefer trying to tear down credibility of source material then addressing the issue presented to them?

Let's not go into who's being paid or not because it's rife on both sides of the debate. And just so you know I don't make it a habit of just checking one source before I post although in this case I only used Prof. Carter. Perhaps just doing that has given readers the wrong impression that I swallow everything he says.

Not so. I do not necessarily and unreservedly accept everything he says for just the reason that you offer i.e. that there may be a potential of bias. But he does make a lot of reasonable and logical points, at least to me as a lay person, to the extent that I consider it worthwhile to start checking further on a given subject.

And I also don't necessarily always accept material published on some of the sceptic websites either.

The point of my post was to question an apparent (to me) organisational bias of the IPCC. I believe it IS biased simply because of its mandate that was given to it right at the beginning. And let's face it - it is via the IPCC that your so-called "overwhelming proof" is presented to the world.

I ask you, if you consider that someone has a biased opinion on something, would YOU accept that opinion as "overwhelming proof"?

What I find contentious is that a group of scientists in 1985 decided beforehand that AGW was real. They could only base the theory of AGW on "best probable" scientific results - not actual proof. But they still went ahead and accepted AGW as real without it being accepted internationally and scientifically - and which today still hasn't been proven 3 decades later.

Having decided that it was close enough to be a proven fact, to my mind, was sheer arrogance and a complete departure from the usual and proper scientific principles. Then to act on it to get the world to accept the theory as real, was to my mind reprehensible.

How else should the actions of those initial scientists and the organisation they subsequently caused to be created, be treated?

To my mind until proven otherwise the IPCC is institutionally, and probably systematically biased because:

1. The IPCC was mandated from the start to only look at global warming from an AGW point of view only and not "in the round" i.e. they do not seriously consider ALL of the possible elements that might contribute to the trend of increased warming in the late 20th century. And when they do they emphasise the negatives.

2. The IPCC and aligned scientists only focus on the late 20th century warming. This is a total waste of time if one is to consider the changes on a historical concept and creates alarm. For example, if it could be scientifically accepted across the board that that the late 20th century warming is more likely to be a natural occurrence, or even slightly warmer because of mankind activities, then money currently being wasted trying to prove AGW could be better spent in improving national and international responses to actual climate disasters - couldn't it?

3. There is some fairly unambiguous evidence to suspect there is likely to be endemic systematic bias within that organisation.

For my own part, I cannot believe that ANY problem can be logically assessed if one only looks at it from a certain viewpoint and that if one only looks at one part of the problem.

What I am looking for is someone to unequivocally prove to me that this isn't the case - without apparent bias, name calling or juvenile emotion. Let's have a mature discussion. Show me something that doesn't appear from the IPCC as a source to substantiate your belief in your cause because I right now as it is, I simply cannot accept their version.

If you can do that, then I'd seriously consider changing my whole point of view which is, for your information:

One might almost think that you have a bias against science and facts and are only looking selectively for anything you can find to confirm your bias.

I do believe:1. That mankind is contributing to global warming in the late 20th century - just not to the limits that the IPCC and pro-AGW advocates say it is.2. Mankind's contributions to the total carbon content in the atmosphere may very well have been the "tipping point" that IPCC (scientists) say it was - or not. The jury is still out on this.3. That the late 20th century warming is most likely nothing new and certainly not as bad as some pro-AGW try to make it seem e.g. Al Gore and others.4. That the current global temperatures may indeed keep rising - or fall over the next decade according to natural cycles.5. That it WOULD be nice not to have so much pollution over our cities anyway6. That some of the huge amounts of money being spent trying to prove an as yet unproven theory over the last 3 decades, could be better spent instituting betting systems of preparedness for inevitable natural disasters.
Edited on 20-03-2017 05:12

I can see where the mandate of tha IPCC basically restricts it to man-made global warming. This by itself is a worthwhile subject to study. But they seem to have added that the warming must be dangerous to the ecology of mankind and other species. The concept of the greenhouse effect was fairly well accepted back in the 19th century. It is recognized as a mechanism that keeps our climate from very cold. That this effect, when applied to man-made CO2 emissions, should spiral into dangerous warming is much more recent and is the theme song of the IPCC. This spiraling has little or no empirical evidence to support it.

That said, I would like to add that the IPCC bias is a strong influence on government provided funding for scientific research. Ironically, if your research is not funded by the government, it is dismissed as being biased toward whatever organization funded it. So government funding, although biased via the IPCC, becomes virtually the only source because it is not acknowledged as being biased.

The IPCC does not do the research it reports on it. For research to go into the IPCC report it has to be robust, most likely the research that in your opinion is missed out is not robust. In fact past IPCC reports have been criticized for being to conservative.

Frescomexico wrote:My point is, the IPCC's mandated bias toward anthropological causes for global warming makes them to tend to exclude research in natural causes, robust or not.

And my point is that if there actually was a natural cause whatever that may be it would be reported on.

As a mass air (the atmosphere) is a body and as a whole can absorb and release energy. With the science I have seen, I'm not sure if it's rate of absorption or entropy has been studied. It seems that scientists focus more on individual gases which does not consider the cumulative effect.

spot wrote:That's conspiracy theory nonsense. If this natural cause existed we would know about it, it would be obvious, and it would take more then the IPCC to suppress it, even if it were inclined to do so.

There is an abundance of sceptics who believe that any scientist who historically poked a head up above the parapet to spruke anti-AGW non-conformist theories would be shouted down - if not by the IPCC itself then certain by it's advocates, many of whom are zealot like in their belief of AGW.

Such anti-sceptic attitudes are not hard to see if one browses the various articles and discussion forums on the web.

spot wrote:The IPCC does not do the research it reports on it. For research to go into the IPCC report it has to be robust, most likely the research that in your opinion is missed out is not robust. In fact past IPCC reports have been criticized for being to conservative.

Quote: "We're underestimating the fact that climate change is rearing its head," said Kevin Trenberth, Unquote.

You've got to be kidding!

Most if not all the computer models used by the IPCC have consistently over-predicting a rise in global temperature projected into the future when checked against real world measurements.

Some of the errors incorporated into the official GCMs are:* It assumes the temperature feedbacks double or triple mankind's CO² contributions. Feedbacks reduce warming not amplify it.* A methodology normally used in electronic circuits creates over-prediction of global warming. They are using the wrong equation.* Modellers have not yet aligned their GCMs to reflect new, lower feedback estimates from the IPCC. They are still predicting 3.3°C per CO² doubling when it should be 2.2°C.* The GCMs predict a future 0.6°C warming yet to come even if emissions are reduced to zero. The simple model, tested over nearly two decades, does not indicate such warming will happen.* The RCPs -Representative Concentration Pathways are four greenhouse projections used for climate modelling and research. RCP 8.5 was adopted by the IPCC for its last Assessment Report - AR5 in 2014. It projects a mean global average temperature rise of 3.7°C with an uncertainty up to 4.8°C by 2100 and up to 12.6°C by 2300. The simple model can see no justification for such claims.

Full copy here:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801730211X

I will read this with interest.

Russ SwanIssues on Climate Changewww.issuesonclimatechange.com

This is basically a repeat of what the IPCC has said. Fine and impressive words which the IPCC is so good at, but which has often historically camouflaged (excuse me) BS.

I cannot seriously consider anything that comes out of the IPCC. What they say on issues may be factual or not - and my perception is that it's not, or at least entirely factual.

As previously mentioned in this thread, the IPCC is organizationally biased in that they are required to only come at the issue of climate change from one angle only. The have a pre-conceived telescopic view of the problem which doesn't lend itself to lateral thinking about it. And that right there is why their doctrine cannot be trusted.

spot wrote: If this natural cause existed we would know about it, it would be obvious

We do know about it, and it is quite obvious.

Is that from your usual source of dodgy graphs?

What's dodgy about it, you say? Well, that graph covers 1,000,000 years in about 820 pixels, so 1,000 years would cover 0.82 of a pixel. AGW has been an issue for about 150 years, which corresponds to 0.12 of a pixel. So it's not really surprising that it doesn't show on the chart, is it?

GasGuzzler wrote:Post up your favorite graph of the last 10K. Would it not look pretty close?

This graph is frequently quoted, e.g. on Wikipedia:

The differently coloured lines represent data from different sources, listed here; the black line is the average of these. This indicates that the global temperature is now probably higher than it has been at any time in the last 12,000 years.

I am not a scientist but I watch horizon and read science magazines and take an interest in the subject.

Now saying that I confess that I have never heard of the Gravito-Thermal Greenhouse Effect theory as an alternative and I have been active on this board for probably longer then is healthy and we have had all sorts. We have had people claiming that the alignment of the pyramids debunk global warming for example.Iron sun believers, sky dragon slayers, the dark planet Nibaru. All of these have been posted by people who seem to think main stream atmospheric physics is some sort of Marxist plot and their pet theory is being suppressed by the evil Cabal that controls all research, the sinister IPCC.

Now what do expect me to think when there is not even a Wikipedia entry on the Gravito-Thermal Greenhouse Effect theory. the highest rated post on the subject is a blog called the hockeyschtick blog, funny pun.

I found an extract;

Earth surface temperature (as well as the surface temperatures of 5 other rocky planets in our solar system) can be very accurately determined solely on the basis of two variables:1. atmospheric pressure at the surface, and2. solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere.

Which to my horizon watching semi trained eyes seems utterly stupid. I can prove different gasses have different properties and this is saying it does not matter what the atmosphere is made of.

Idiocy

IBdaMann wrote:"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.

Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.

Now what do expect me to think when there is not even a Wikipedia entry on the Gravito-Thermal Greenhouse Effect theory. the highest rated post on the subject is a blog called the hockeyschtick blog, funny pun.

You believe Wikipedia is not a biased source of reference?

It's pretty much "open source" and much of the content is added by AGW advocates. To me at least, it's not a reliable source of balanced information and cannot be trusted no matter whether the a particular article is in support or denial of climate change.

Would you just accept what someone was telling you if you knew that person was seriously biased ? Of course you wouldn't

And regarding why the Gravito Thermal issue isn't on Wikipedia? Now ... that would be an argument against AGW wouldn't it?
Edited on 13-04-2017 01:59

spot wrote:That's conspiracy theory nonsense. If this natural cause existed we would know about it, it would be obvious, and it would take more then the IPCC to suppress it, even if it were inclined to do so.

The IPCC may not be conspiring to suppress research into other natural causes, although Climategate sure made it appear so. The IPCC is simply following its mandate to investigate AGW. Your faith, that we would know about natural causes, would be admirable if we were talking religion. But in science we need research, and unfunded research does not happen very often.
Edited on 13-04-2017 10:57

spot wrote:That's conspiracy theory nonsense. If this natural cause existed we would know about it, it would be obvious, and it would take more then the IPCC to suppress it, even if it were inclined to do so.

The IPCC may not be conspiring to suppress research into other natural causes, although Climategate sure made it appear so. The IPCC is simply following its mandate to investigate AGW. Your faith, that we would know about natural causes, would be admirable if we were talking religion. But in science we need research, and unfunded research does not happen very often.

Don, From what I know the IPCC may be protecting the reason for their existence. After all, climate scientists were Heros for realizing the danger and harm that CFC's are and can do to our atmosphere. CO2 gave them IMO a new lease on life. There are some basic things that have not been demonstrated. If co2 causes that atmosphere to become warmer because it would retain more heat, then why haven't they demonstrated this ? And since you work with refrigerants, how do they know how much heat a refrigerant can absorb and release ? Likewise the same testing can be done with atmospheric gases. I think when they do that then they can say they have verified co2's warming potential.

James_ wrote: From what I know the IPCC may be protecting the reason for their existence. After all, climate scientists were Heros for realizing the danger and harm that CFC's are and can do to our atmosphere.

CFC's do nothing to the ozone layer. They are basically an inert molecule. Placed in the presence of ozone, nothing happens.

If CFC's break up (through ultraviolet light perhaps), they will release free chlorine. That can affect ozone, but chlorine is extremely reactive. It will react with something else long before it gets near the ozone layer.

Ozone is created by the Sun and oxygen. It fades each night and is rebuilt each day. Ozone is self destructive, and the action of the Sun in the upper stratosphere is also destructive to ozone (through the action of UV-C, which doesn't penetrate into the atmosphere any further than that).

As long as you have Sun and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. You can't stop that. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.

Question: Why does the 'hole' appear over the poles, rather than over the industrialized nations of the Earth?

spot wrote:That's conspiracy theory nonsense. If this natural cause existed we would know about it, it would be obvious, and it would take more then the IPCC to suppress it, even if it were inclined to do so.

The IPCC may not be conspiring to suppress research into other natural causes, although Climategate sure made it appear so. The IPCC is simply following its mandate to investigate AGW. Your faith, that we would know about natural causes, would be admirable if we were talking religion. But in science we need research, and unfunded research does not happen very often.

Don, From what I know the IPCC may be protecting the reason for their existence. After all, climate scientists were Heros for realizing the danger and harm that CFC's are and can do to our atmosphere. CO2 gave them IMO a new lease on life. There are some basic things that have not been demonstrated. If co2 causes that atmosphere to become warmer because it would retain more heat, then why haven't they demonstrated this ? And since you work with refrigerants, how do they know how much heat a refrigerant can absorb and release ? Likewise the same testing can be done with atmospheric gases. I think when they do that then they can say they have verified co2's warming potential.

Jim

Jim,CO2 (R-744) is actually an excellent refrigerant, but only when contained where its latent heat qualities can be used. Its specific heat (the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of a kilogram by one degree K), varies with temperature, but is precisely known. In refrigeration this is called sensible heat.

spot wrote:That's conspiracy theory nonsense. If this natural cause existed we would know about it, it would be obvious, and it would take more then the IPCC to suppress it, even if it were inclined to do so.

The IPCC may not be conspiring to suppress research into other natural causes, although Climategate sure made it appear so. The IPCC is simply following its mandate to investigate AGW. Your faith, that we would know about natural causes, would be admirable if we were talking religion. But in science we need research, and unfunded research does not happen very often.

How much money do you need? I can show CO2 absorbs heat with two soda pop bottles and a hangover pill.

IBdaMann wrote:"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.

Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
Edited on 14-04-2017 13:43

Now what do expect me to think when there is not even a Wikipedia entry on the Gravito-Thermal Greenhouse Effect theory. the highest rated post on the subject is a blog called the hockeyschtick blog, funny pun.

You believe Wikipedia is not a biased source of reference?

It's pretty much "open source" and much of the content is added by AGW advocates. To me at least, it's not a reliable source of balanced information and cannot be trusted no matter whether the a particular article is in support or denial of climate change.

Would you just accept what someone was telling you if you knew that person was seriously biased ? Of course you wouldn't

And regarding why the Gravito Thermal issue isn't on Wikipedia? Now ... that would be an argument against AGW wouldn't it?

You say its been around since the 18th century and you name drop Einstein and Feynman as having worked on it. They have a page on Phlogiston theory for example. I would expect to find something on it.

IBdaMann wrote:"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.

Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.

spot wrote:That's conspiracy theory nonsense. If this natural cause existed we would know about it, it would be obvious, and it would take more then the IPCC to suppress it, even if it were inclined to do so.

The IPCC may not be conspiring to suppress research into other natural causes, although Climategate sure made it appear so. The IPCC is simply following its mandate to investigate AGW. Your faith, that we would know about natural causes, would be admirable if we were talking religion. But in science we need research, and unfunded research does not happen very often.

How much money do you need? I can show CO2 absorbs heat with two soda pop bottles and a hangover pill.

The question is not whether CO2 absorbs heat. All gasses do. The question is what are all of the effects when that energy is emitted from the CO2. And I suspect the amount of money would be a lot less than trying to prematurely stop the use of fossil fuels.

Frescomexico wrote:The question is not whether CO2 absorbs heat. All gasses do. The question is what are all of the effects when that energy is emitted from the CO2. And I suspect the amount of money would be a lot less than trying to prematurely stop the use of fossil fuels.

CO2 radiates energy for the same reason all gases do.They are above absolute zero in temperature. There is nothing special about CO2 radiance. All gases in the atmosphere have a radiance.

There is no need to investigate it. It simply is not possible for a colder substance to heat a hotter surface. Heat flows from hot to cold, never the reverse.

Frescomexico wrote:The question is not whether CO2 absorbs heat. All gasses do. The question is what are all of the effects when that energy is emitted from the CO2. And I suspect the amount of money would be a lot less than trying to prematurely stop the use of fossil fuels.

CO2 radiates energy for the same reason all gases do.They are above absolute zero in temperature. There is nothing special about CO2 radiance. All gases in the atmosphere have a radiance.

There is no need to investigate it. It simply is not possible for a colder substance to heat a hotter surface. Heat flows from hot to cold, never the reverse.

There is something special about CO2 radiance. Unlike nitrogen and oxygen, CO2 and other greenhouse gases emit and absorb in the thermal infrared spectral region. There is no heat flowing from cold to hot and the greenhouse effect is real, although possibly not as threatening as the IPCC would have you believe.

Frescomexico wrote:The question is not whether CO2 absorbs heat. All gasses do. The question is what are all of the effects when that energy is emitted from the CO2. And I suspect the amount of money would be a lot less than trying to prematurely stop the use of fossil fuels.

CO2 radiates energy for the same reason all gases do.They are above absolute zero in temperature. There is nothing special about CO2 radiance. All gases in the atmosphere have a radiance.

There is no need to investigate it. It simply is not possible for a colder substance to heat a hotter surface. Heat flows from hot to cold, never the reverse.

There is something special about CO2 radiance. Unlike nitrogen and oxygen, CO2 and other greenhouse gases emit and absorb in the thermal infrared spectral region. There is no heat flowing from cold to hot and the greenhouse effect is real, although possibly not as threatening as the IPCC would have you believe.

I should amend my last comment to say the greenhouse effect is a real theory because there is no confirming empirical evidence that I am aware of.

rwswan wrote: For those new to this blog the IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change is the world's leader in promoting the theory that mankind is dangerously warming the globe aka AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming. It wouldn't be too much to say it even has a monopoly on it.

The IPCC, for the most part, owns AGW just as Saudi Arabia owns Islam and Mecca and Medina.

rwswan wrote: It is ultimately from them that international governments are being badgered to adopt emission control targets via means of the UNFCCC - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change treaty.

You aren't looking at it properly.

The IPCC is a major lobbying group for Marxism to all governments. They provide the propaganda to motivate governments to punish the successful and to redistribute their country's wealth away from those who have earned it to those who have not. The IPCC advocates for governments to wrest more and more power from the people and vest that power in the governments. It also preaches a 100% zero-tolerance policy towards differing viewpoints.

<understatement> Yes, the IPCC is biased. </understatement>

.

Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin.- trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"!- Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Frescomexico wrote:The question is not whether CO2 absorbs heat. All gasses do. The question is what are all of the effects when that energy is emitted from the CO2. And I suspect the amount of money would be a lot less than trying to prematurely stop the use of fossil fuels.

CO2 radiates energy for the same reason all gases do.They are above absolute zero in temperature. There is nothing special about CO2 radiance. All gases in the atmosphere have a radiance.

There is no need to investigate it. It simply is not possible for a colder substance to heat a hotter surface. Heat flows from hot to cold, never the reverse.

There is something special about CO2 radiance. Unlike nitrogen and oxygen, CO2 and other greenhouse gases emit and absorb in the thermal infrared spectral region. There is no heat flowing from cold to hot and the greenhouse effect is real, although possibly not as threatening as the IPCC would have you believe.

I should amend my last comment to say the greenhouse effect is a real theory because there is no confirming empirical evidence that I am aware of.

No, it is not. It is not internally consistent. The concept creates paradoxes. No theory, scientific or otherwise, can be based on logical fallacies.